NO they are not. As I posted, in New York, the regulation uses the term “reasonable accommodation” and that is similar in other states. That is not crystal clear by any measure and arguing about what is is or not reasonable is a recipe for disaster.</p>
<p>Let’s take another example. Remember the family I posted about earlier who let their daughter go by webcam with the hospital? What if that family had said “we agree she is dead, we support your diagnosis and we will withdraw any support that prevents the cessation of her heartbeat, but we want to be there in person.” Completely reasonable, but with the weather, the distance, possibly other logistics, it could take a week to get it arranged. Still reasonable, IMO, but still open to debate if the hospital thought it was too long. It shouldn’t be open to debate, it should be spelled out clearly to avoid litigation.</p>
We are all speculating because, heaven knows, something went wrong here from very early on and as has been pointed out by lots of posters of all views, the hospital’s communication in public was very lacking, so if they weren’t being careful with public statements, who knows what they were saying in private? </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, would you consider any possibility that the hospital could/should have done anything different? Is there anything that could come out at trial that would give you pause?</p>
<p>I was not talking about accommodations , I was talking about the definition of brain death.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine a hospital not giving a family extra time if there was a true issue with weather, gathering family, or something like that. This is not an example re: death but when my mother needed open heart surgery years ago, I was 8 hours away . My sister informed the hospital that it would take me at least a day to get there. They delayed rather urgent surgery for a day while I could get there, which was greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>Your question was not directed at me- but-It would give me pause if it comes out the family was ignored when they said Jahi was bleeding profusely. But that is a potential malpractice case issue. And it really wouldn’t have anything to do with this current standoff about her death status.</p>
<p>Sevmom, they had extra time. They were in the middle of extra time when they went on television and accused the hospital of planning to kill Jahi. It was the evening of the third day, Dec 15th.</p>
It’s what happens after the declaration of brain death that is at issue. Jahi was declared brain dead almost a month ago. The question is what then. The requirements vary by state and include words like “reasonable accommodation.” Defining that is how we prevent people from decomposing in a medical facility or from being disconnected too soon for a family to get to the bedside.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree they had extra time. I was responding to zoosermom. In my opinion, they did have more than enough time to make arrangements (and were given MUCH more time than the usual 1 to 2 days that family is traditionally given).</p>
<p>zoosermom, The issue is that the family refuses to believe she is dead. No amount of accommodation is going to change that position.</p>
<p>That was an interesting article, Zoosermom. It also provides some of the supporting evidence for the disparity in organ donations by race. Our local hospice has had challenges in successfully reaching out to Hispanic families for other cultural reasons. </p>
<p>The open-casket funeral should be the icing on the cake for this tragedy. I feel sorry for the undertaker.</p>
<p>But sometimes that’s impossible to do. For instance, do we want the hospital regulations to read that mechanical support will without exception be turned off at 36 hours when because of a delayed flight someone’s spouse will arrive at 36.5 hours? Sometimes a grey area is necessary.</p>
Again. It’s not all about this case. It’s about the systemic weaknesses that this case has exposed. If THIS happens and the system remains the same, it will happen again. I believe we should be having a national conversation about this and shoring up those weaknesses. This is an abomination and no one should want it to ever happen again. Once litigation commences it takes on a life of its own.</p>
That can be accounted for better than is currently the case. It is also possible to spell out what rights each side could have, as well as a procedure for swifter resolution. Those things don’t have to be left to chance, we just have to give better consideration. Now that technology is so advanced, it’s not necessarily a terrible thing to give end of life rights and responsibilities a fresh look.</p>
<p>CHO’s population is overwhelmingly low income (more than 3/4 of its patients are on Medi-Cal). Perhaps I am over-assuming, but I would think that they are used to dealing with low-information families. I am not going to defend the hospital, since I don’t know what actually happened (my mom was “killed” by neglect in a hospital, so I know it happens) … just saying that they do have experience with low-information families. </p>
<p>The only thing I can say that is “positive” in this case is that Jahi is no longer in her body, so there is no harm to her at this point. If you are religious, you most likely believe she has already transitioned from her body. Even if you are not religious, I assume you believe her time on earth is through. Either way, she is not hurt by the current state of affairs. Her family, on the other hand, is … and I think it’s awful that anyone is giving them hope that she will somehow recover.</p>
<p>I think people really need to leave the family alone. I am really glad they got what they wanted.</p>
<p>People on this thread seem very superior, because they feel ‘science’ is on their side. We allow people to cryogenically freeze people that have passed away, and no one calls it an abomination (well, at least not as many people), even though the chances of ever reviving a frozen perosn are probably just as, if not more, remote than this girl.</p>
<p>For goodness sake, I am not arguing the hospital or the government or anyone else should pay for it. But if the family wants to raise the fund and continue keeping the girl/body on life/death support, it’s no one’s business to forbid them to do this. I think the reactions and the extreme judgment of the family are what’s extremely ridiculous. And I am certainly glad that the court let them transfer the girl. I am glad it is going to be their decision as to when to pull the plug on the ventilator. And I certainly hope the courts don’t take steps to change that.</p>
<p>For me, zoosermom, the bigger issue is that a judge got in the middle of this and did not allow the hospital to remove her from a ventilator, despite being declared brain dead under California law. I get the ordering of an independent evaluation but not the rest. So, now we have a young girl that has been decomposing for almost a month.</p>
<p>Sure, and someday a lawyer with nothing better to do on his/her hands, (and seeking pr?) will challenge those ‘rights’…you cannot draw any line that will not be challenged and played out in court.</p>
<p>This is what I would want done (and I am writing to my state legislators to say so). I would want the family and the hospital to sign as part of the pre-surgery/hospitalization paperwork an agreement that in the event of such an eventuality, once the patient has been declared brain dead, any conflict between the parties in terms of the how/when to withdraw support would be decided by the mediation/early neutral program of that jurisdiction within, say 48 hours and that mediator/neutral’s decision would be binding. Many jurisdictions have mediators/neutrals who have been vetted and trained and are ready to go. Give the parties 48 hours to present sides, let the decision be made and let it be binding.</p>
<p>“I think people really need to leave the family alone.”</p>
<p>With all due respect, the family has been soliciting this attention. No-one compelled that uncle to spend all day yesterday granting interviews. It’s unusual grieving at best.</p>
<p>Even if something is “binding,” I don’t think there would be anything to prevent a family from taking their case to the media, or having a lawyer try to find some type of loophole to get it before a court?</p>